1st Wolverine art @ $140K with 22 days to go!! 0

[Rip]

As mentioned before, the small little picture on your computer screen takes so much away from the piece when so much depends on size and surface.

In all honesty I'm not as big of a Rothko fan as I am say Pollock. But the Fine Art world has a running narrative where there are certain artists that have influenced and contributed to that dialog.

 

Taking the artwork in as just a visual experience in the year 2014 is missing the importance of context within its Zeitgeist.

 

Just as one could look at Wolverine and say, well that piece is a poorly drawn man in a funny suit with claws sticking out of his hands. I could certainly state that many high school artists could draw better. It doesn't look very unique or groundbreaking. 250K is a waste when I could buy many Alex Ross pieces for that that clearly look better.

 

But yet I know this Wolverine piece is of much greater importance, just as Pollock's piece spurred countless debates in the late 40's and 50's his pieces are of much greater importance than just the visual experience.

 

The answer to why these pieces are important aren't easy ones that can always be summed up in a 45 second read.

[Bronty]

I suppose so

[Unca Ben]

And this is where I really take issue with the whole subject. The "you don't understand it", "you don't get art", "people with money can appreciate it" - my personal favorite.

 

If this is the kind of thing you enjoy, fine, I can accept that. I'll still snicker at you for claiming it's some great masterpiece but if that's what you want to drop millions of dollars on, it's your money. I'm a grown man collecting comicbooks, I know many people will laugh at me for that. I understand it does seem silly and that's fine with me.

 

I just hate the smugness of it all. Guess what, it's not that I don't get it, it's that I think it's . No, a 6 year old could not reproduce this painting. That would take real talent to recreate any painting stroke for stroke. However, a 6 year old could most certainly create something very similar. I get it, there is thought and emotion behind these paintings. You know what, that doesn't make them good.

 

And believe it or not I'm not some unwashed heathen who can't enjoy art. I love seeing and hearing what talented people can produce with their hands. But some of this contemporary "art" is just laughable.

 

I wasn't being smug. Posts that say things like "my five year old can do that" are examples of excessive pride (being smug).

 

A few of things:

 

• I like the painting

• I don't know exactly why; I don't really "understand" it. It appears to be done by one of those 20th century abstract painters- I could probably use google and pretend I know who it is, but I won't. It doesn't matter.

• If someone believes they or their child could do this, then they should try. If successful, they could make some money, or show that the art world is fake and pretentious.
  If they fail, they might walk away with a different perspective on this type of art.

• The above statement was made from my own experience. In art class, I had been copying paintings fairly successfully, - I mean they looked okay - like this N.C.Wyeth:
   
  

• After my constant criticism of Picasso ("he can't draw, he can't paint"), my art teacher had me pick one of his paintings and copy it. He gave me a week. It was a painting similar to this one:
   
  

I could not do it. Nothing you would recognize as an attempted copy of Picasso, like you could my attempts at Wyeth, or Bellows, or Homer. Not even close.

• 
  I quit criticizing Picasso after that. I learned my lesson.

• Talk is cheap. Experience taught me that.

[rodan57]

Come on. A six year would never be able to paint that, storms for stroke or otherwise. Those colors are all soft muted tones and the six year old would never be able to achieve that look.

 

I've not seen one in person which they say is a huge part of the experience but forgetting that for a moment they don't have to be any good to achieve that price. Look at our own hobby. Lots of bad books and bad art get significant price tags simply due to their place in history. Really we are better situated than most to understand it because our fundamental behaviour as collectors isnt that different. But, we don't collect it and the price tag is huge so we pick it apart. Paying 50m for a Rothko and 50k or 100k for a Kirby ARE NOT THAT DIFFERENT. On the surface both look like they could be created by children. There's probably more to each than immediately meets the eye. And the price tag of either price is inextricably intertwined with the artist's place in the history of his medium.

 

Simply put if one can understand comic pages going for six figures based on "history" its not any great mental exercise to understand 7 or 8 figures for fine art based on "history".

 

 

While I agree with what you have written, I just wanted to add that a marketplace driven by dealers, their deep pocket clients and favoured blessed artists plays a large part in what is considered the very best. I'll let others decide if I am talking about modern non-representative art or comic books.

[Unca Ben]

I love debates about art.

 

They're a good reminder about how small most penises are.

 

I don't need a debate to remind me how small my has gotten. I just need a mirror.

[Bronty]

Come on. A six year would never be able to paint that, storms for stroke or otherwise. Those colors are all soft muted tones and the six year old would never be able to achieve that look.

 

I've not seen one in person which they say is a huge part of the experience but forgetting that for a moment they don't have to be any good to achieve that price. Look at our own hobby. Lots of bad books and bad art get significant price tags simply due to their place in history. Really we are better situated than most to understand it because our fundamental behaviour as collectors isnt that different. But, we don't collect it and the price tag is huge so we pick it apart. Paying 50m for a Rothko and 50k or 100k for a Kirby ARE NOT THAT DIFFERENT. On the surface both look like they could be created by children. There's probably more to each than immediately meets the eye. And the price tag of either price is inextricably intertwined with the artist's place in the history of his medium.

 

Simply put if one can understand comic pages going for six figures based on "history" its not any great mental exercise to understand 7 or 8 figures for fine art based on "history".

 

 

While I agree with what you have written, I just wanted to add that a marketplace driven by dealers, their deep pocket clients and favoured blessed artists plays a large part in what is considered the very best. I'll let others decide if I am talking about modern non-representative art or comic books.

 

Exactly.

 

As a teenager and even as a young adult I equated how 'good' a piece of art was on some scale I didn't understand with its price tag. Now I realize that Action 1 isn't the best comic anyone's ever read, it's just the most expensive - for other reasons that have nothing to do with how it reads.

 

Similarly, these 8 figure pieces DON'T need to look 'good' on any scale real or imagined to warrant a huge price, that's simply a potential bonus. There are other factors much more important than the basic 'attractiveness' of the piece.

[COI]

For a few posts, it`s fine. But when it takes over this thread and just becomes this endless circular argument, then it just becomes boring and annoying.

 

You've just described 99% of all conversations on the internet. It's the nature of the beast.

[bronze_rules]

The great beauty of this debate (disagreement, speculation, whatever...) is that if the price does not approach/breach the 400k that the peanut gallery projects, the legitimizers have been legitimized, while if it does, then the buyers are insufficiently_thoughtful_persons from the peanut gallery. Either way, the legitimizer is was and shall always be right!

 

 

[slym2none]

Just an FYI - the definition of "Zeitgeist."

 

 

 

 

-slym

[techtre2003]

And this is where I really take issue with the whole subject. The "you don't understand it", "you don't get art", "people with money can appreciate it" - my personal favorite.

 

If this is the kind of thing you enjoy, fine, I can accept that. I'll still snicker at you for claiming it's some great masterpiece but if that's what you want to drop millions of dollars on, it's your money. I'm a grown man collecting comicbooks, I know many people will laugh at me for that. I understand it does seem silly and that's fine with me.

 

I just hate the smugness of it all. Guess what, it's not that I don't get it, it's that I think it's . No, a 6 year old could not reproduce this painting. That would take real talent to recreate any painting stroke for stroke. However, a 6 year old could most certainly create something very similar. I get it, there is thought and emotion behind these paintings. You know what, that doesn't make them good.

 

And believe it or not I'm not some unwashed heathen who can't enjoy art. I love seeing and hearing what talented people can produce with their hands. But some of this contemporary "art" is just laughable.

 

I wasn't being smug. Posts that say things like "my five year old can do that" are examples of excessive pride (being smug).

 

I do apologize for that. The smug comment was just a general reference to what I've seen and heard over the years. From what I've gathered from your posts in the WC, smug is definitely not a word I would use to describe you sir.

 

A few of things:

 

• I like the painting

Fair enough. If I were looking at you right now I'd be raising an eyebrow with a funny look on my face but I've seen people into much stranger things so I'll just leave it alone.

 

• I don't know exactly why; I don't really "understand" it. It appears to be done by one of those 20th century abstract painters- I could probably use google and pretend I know who it is, but I won't. It doesn't matter.

This I respect 100%. You aren't saying you like it because you heard some other jerk yaking on about how it represents some b.s. or because a big name painted it so you are supposed to think it's great. You like it just because you like it.

• If someone believes they or their child could do this, then they should try. If successful, they could make some money, or show that the art world is fake and pretentious.
  If they fail, they might walk away with a different perspective on this type of art.

Since this whole conversation started I've done a little Googling and this has absolutely been done many times. It has been proven as far as I'm concerned.

• The above statement was made from my own experience. In art class, I had been copying paintings fairly successfully, - I mean they looked okay - like this N.C.Wyeth:
   
  

• After my constant criticism of Picasso ("he can't draw, he can't paint"), my art teacher had me pick one of his paintings and copy it. He gave me a week. It was a painting similar to this one:
   
  

I could not do it. Nothing you would recognize as an attempted copy of Picasso, like you could my attempts at Wyeth, or Bellows, or Homer. Not even close.

• 
  I quit criticizing Picasso after that. I learned my lesson.

• Talk is cheap. Experience taught me that.

 

I actually like some of Picasso's stuff and I know I could never replicate it. There is actually quite a bit of art that I like. But, like you, I like it because I like it. Not because I'm supposed to like it. And I still think the prices these pieces fetch are simply preposterous no matter how outstanding they are.

[techtre2003]

 

I thought there was hope for your post until the end there

 

Where did I go wrong? The nostalgia part?

[RockMyAmadeus]

[

 

And wasn't your whole argument that Wolverine wasn't that popular until LATE 80s? )

 

My argument is that Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986-up.

 

Was he very popular? Yes, of course.

 

But...and this is a key that many want to diminish, but it speaks volumes: he wasn't popular enough to get his own series. Marvel did not think he could carry his own series, when they thought dozens of others could.

 

He was simply not considered a "solo" character, and could not be a superstar in his own right because of it. He was part of a team. An integral part of the team, yes. But part of a team nonetheless. Just like Sue, Johnny, and Reed didn't have their own series, but the Thing did, because Marvel believed that the Thing was the most popular character on the team (which was proven correct, by virtue of him carrying his own series for 136 consecutive issues.)

 

He appeared high on fan award polls, yes. But it has to be taken into account that those poll results are from people who were very big comic fans to begin with, and who cared enough to respond. They are not scientific. That doesn't mean they have no value...of course not. But they are not scientific, and they are most decidedly skewed towards people who were already huge fans to begin with.

 

If you had simply said Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986, I'm not sure I would have entered the debate. I would have disagreed but would have likely not entered a prolonged debate..

 

But since we have some more parameters of the debate I added a quote and a link.

Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986-up and....

"I think it's safe to say that Wolverine was NOT *THE* big draw for the X-Men until the late 80's (generally, 1986 and beyond), and that it was fairly equally spread up until then. "

See most Significant X-Men thread.

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7637525&fpart=6

 

That's the thread that really started the debate. You were claiming that Wolverine wasn't even the most popular X-men. Your above quote makes it look like you are moving the goalposts.

 

Do you know why Wolverine didn't get his own series? Do you have any information to support your claim that "Marvel did not think he could carry his own series until 1988" other than simply not having one?

 

And if Marvel believed this, what facts can you bring to the table that supported Marvels supposed belief? Polling? Mothers against Wolverine?

 

Why did the series wait until late 1988 when you claim he was a superstar around the start of 1986.

 

 

 

You can't argue it both ways. Wolverine didn't get his own series until 1988. Marvel's focus on new series in 1986 was CLEARLY the New Universe, and very little new ongoing series came out in the 1986-1987 period, outside of Star and the New U.

 

I stand by my statements. We can agree to disagree. I'm tired of the debate, really. Too much hostility. I'm open to discussion as long as anyone wishes, but not confrontation.

 

Both ways? I'm trying to understand your logic and see the supporting information.

 

So you are telling me, (according to you) Marvel would rather wait on Wolverine and instead go with Star, and New Universe, a complete gamble that failed?

(And yes I'm sure you could debate the degree of failure for 50 pages)

 

 

Is this your reasonable reply to all of the above?

You DO realize its OK to say you are wrong on the internet. I won't think any less of you.

 

 

 

Yes, both ways. You can't say on the one hand "so, you're saying Wolvie wasn't popular at all in the early 80's" and on the other "so, you're saying Wolvie was a superstar by 1986, so why didn't get get a series until 1988?" The answer, as always, is between those two extremes.

 

And Wolverine DID have his own title by 1986...it just happened to be called "The Uncanny X-Men." But the focus for the title clearly changed to become "Wolverine: Occasionally Guest Starring The Other X-Men."

 

I am not going to debate it with you for 50 more pages or 1 more page. I've presented the information, and it's clear: Wolverine was popular in the early 80's. However, he was among a team of equals, that team being the X-Men. He was thought of as a supporting character by many, demonstrated by the Eagle awards you cited. He was neither *THE* X-Man, nor was he a superstar at this point. This is the period from 1980-1983.

 

To suggest that Marvel didn't give him his own series because they didn't want to "overexpose him", when Spidey had 4, the Thing had 2, and there are literally hundreds of other characters that Marvel believed could sustain their own titles in the meantime, makes little sense. They were Marvel. They were in business to make money. If they thought Wolverine was as popular as you claim, he would have had a series. This is a company, after all, that gave the Punisher a mini-series in the fall of 1985...and by the spring of 1987, a year and a half later, gave him a regular one. But, a year and a half after Wolvie's mini, late 1983, there was....nothing. And you folks arguing that he was the hottest thing since sliced bread have no answer for that.

 

If you want to cite two fan polls, and various pieces of ad art, as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", then there's no point at which we can reach consensus, and we are simply talking in circles. Talking in circles doesn't achieve anything.

 

If you need to believe I'm wrong, by all means, feel free. When you're discussing something that ultimately boils down to opinion, which is never an issue of right or wrong to begin with, and you have to insist I admit I'm wrong, there's nothing more to discuss.

 

:shrug:

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I do object to the hyperbole from people who seem to have forgotten comic history - the most important or 2nd most important piece of OA in the past 40 years? Who here agrees with that? And, while I'm not discounting the possibility of a huge price, to say that it will easily surpass $1 million is a claim that no knowledgeable OA collector or dealer would make. Heck, even Burkey would only go on record saying more than $200K (and he's not one to shy away from putting the pom-poms on). Even if the piece does sell for a truly insane amount, it would do nothing to change the ex ante fact it was utterly baseless speculation (as opposed to considered opinion from those who know the market and the players) and that pointing to outliers like the ASM #328 cover, let alone $100 million Modern art masterpieces, to justify any other price is a completely exercise.

Why do you assign so much importance to the opinions of the peanut gallery? If you hadn`t made such a big deal and focused 2/3 of this thread on those opinions, they would`ve been buried in this thread and no one would have given them any further thought. It`s not like the final price of this piece will be impacted one iota by the opinions of the peanut gallery anyways.

 

Or did you think the real players, after reading some of the posts in this thread, suddenly started thinking "Hmm, I was only going to bid up to $X00,000, but now I better be ready to bid over $1M"?

 

Oh god.

 

This is like the scientific community's rationale for not debating creationists; that the opposing side is too irrational and uninformed for their opinions to be dignified by a response. Except that a thread in comics general discussing comic art may not be important enough to take this kind of attitude. The fact that, as you say, the price of this piece won't be impacted by the uninformed or less informed opinions around here, makes Gene acknowledging them and engaging them a harmless exercise. I've enjoyed reading Gene's posts in this thread, as he rarely makes an appearance in the comic section these days, and I'm sure plenty of us in the "peanut gallery" appreciate the discussion, undignified and offensive to your sensibilities as it may be.

 

 

Did you just call me irrational and uninformed?

 

Jerk.

 

 

The only reason anyone spends time on the arguments of anyone else is because they aren't *quite* certain about their own position.

 

I freely admit that's the case, which is why I love the discussion. I'm happy to consider things that I hadn't considered before.

 

If the opposing side in a debate is clearly wrong, the "informed side" merely states the correct information, and then doesn't waste any more time arguing about it, because that's what it is: a waste of time debating facts. If delekkerste really thought I was an effing maroon, with absolutely no merit to any of my positions, he wouldn't waste his time. No one but effing maroons wastes their time trying to convince people *they* think are effing maroons of anything.

 

But if it's really opinion.....now we're on to something.

 

What tth said is completely correct: if you don't make a big deal about what you think are uninformed opinions, they get buried, and no one wastes anything. That's why tth rarely discusses things with many; he literally believes they have nothing to offer him, and aren't worth his time.

 

And Chrisco...I'll have to respectfully disagree with you: they are two different concepts, and dissimilar enough to make the distinction.

[RockMyAmadeus]

If my 14-year old daughter told me that the greatest musical act ever is One Direction (which she in fact has), I might spend a few minutes trying to explain to her why she`s wrong, but she won`t be listening to me anyways and even if she is, she doesn`t have enough context to understand my argument at the moment, and in a few years she`ll realize how wrong she was anyways. So why waste the next 3 hours debating something like that?

 

Hey now, that's just your opinion that One-D isn't the greatest musical act in history; it cannot be proven as fact. Or, at least that's what someone here might have you believe!

 

Anyway, point taken - I really shouldn't have gotten caught up in this back-and-forth, as numerous people have PM'ed to tell me. And, normally, I wouldn't have. Usually, when I read a bunch of hot air and puffery in Comics General, I just let it slide and don't get involved. But, when someone tried to authoritatively expound on two ludicrous positions concerning subjects that I am intimately familiar with in short succession, I'm afraid I couldn't help myself this time. This individual proceeded to employ the

, the Chewbacca Defense, and all sorts of outlandish puffery, obfuscation and misrepresentation to try and defend these positions despite the crushing weight of evidence and informed opinion against him and I just could not stop myself from calling him out on it.

 

Feel better now...?

 

[bb8]

I wonder what the bidding strategies are for extreme heavy hitters who can lay out 250 k for a piece of pop art? Hard early? Duel it out? Snipe? Boggles the mind how much $ is passing around in the hobby sometimes.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Why are there so many words in this thread?

 

RMA

 

You forgot delekkerste and Rip.

 

I know that's not your thing, though.

[VintageComics]

I wonder what the bidding strategies are for extreme heavy hitters who can lay out 250 k for a piece of pop art? Hard early? Duel it out? Snipe? Boggles the mind how much $ is passing around in the hobby sometimes.

 

Bid in the last seconds and usually by phone.

 

Or if they aren't available at the time of bidding, just throw in a number ahead of time.

[delekkerste]

And Wolverine DID have his own title by 1986...it just happened to be called "The Uncanny X-Men." But the focus for the title clearly changed to become "Wolverine: Occasionally Guest Starring The Other X-Men."

 

I am not going to debate it with you for 50 more pages or 1 more page. I've presented the information, and it's clear: Wolverine was popular in the early 80's. However, he was among a team of equals, that team being the X-Men. He was thought of as a supporting character by many, demonstrated by the Eagle awards you cited. He was neither *THE* X-Man, nor was he a superstar at this point. This is the period from 1980-1983.

 

To suggest that Marvel didn't give him his own series because they didn't want to "overexpose him", when Spidey had 4, the Thing had 2, and there are literally hundreds of other characters that Marvel believed could sustain their own titles in the meantime, makes little sense. They were Marvel. They were in business to make money. If they thought Wolverine was as popular as you claim, he would have had a series. This is a company, after all, that gave the Punisher a mini-series in the fall of 1985...and by the spring of 1987, a year and a half later, gave him a regular one. But, a year and a half after Wolvie's mini, late 1983, there was....nothing. And you folks arguing that he was the hottest thing since sliced bread have no answer for that.

 

Not everything about this situation is 100% knowable, but there is the far-fetched interpretation you are proposing, and what logic and common sense would suggest is far more plausible/probable. It is no different than a jury making up its mind based on the preponderance of the evidence. At this point, it just seems as though you're trying to create some kind of reasonable doubt or find some kind of face-saving technicality, because your position is otherwise totally untenable.

 

I feel that your points above have already been thoroughly debunked in previous posts by myself and others. Regarding anything further you may say on this topic, I simply refer interested parties back to previous posts in this thread and the two other threads which are linked in one of my earlier posts.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And Wolverine DID have his own title by 1986...it just happened to be called "The Uncanny X-Men." But the focus for the title clearly changed to become "Wolverine: Occasionally Guest Starring The Other X-Men."

 

I am not going to debate it with you for 50 more pages or 1 more page. I've presented the information, and it's clear: Wolverine was popular in the early 80's. However, he was among a team of equals, that team being the X-Men. He was thought of as a supporting character by many, demonstrated by the Eagle awards you cited. He was neither *THE* X-Man, nor was he a superstar at this point. This is the period from 1980-1983.

 

To suggest that Marvel didn't give him his own series because they didn't want to "overexpose him", when Spidey had 4, the Thing had 2, and there are literally hundreds of other characters that Marvel believed could sustain their own titles in the meantime, makes little sense. They were Marvel. They were in business to make money. If they thought Wolverine was as popular as you claim, he would have had a series. This is a company, after all, that gave the Punisher a mini-series in the fall of 1985...and by the spring of 1987, a year and a half later, gave him a regular one. But, a year and a half after Wolvie's mini, late 1983, there was....nothing. And you folks arguing that he was the hottest thing since sliced bread have no answer for that.

 

Not everything about this situation is 100% knowable, but there is the far-fetched interpretation you are proposing, and what logic and common sense would suggest is far more plausible/probable. It is no different than a jury making up its mind based on the preponderance of the evidence. At this point, it just seems as though you're trying to create some kind of reasonable doubt or find some kind of face-saving technicality, because your position is otherwise totally untenable.

 

I feel that your points above have already been thoroughly debunked in previous posts by myself and others. Regarding anything further you may say on this topic, I simply refer interested parties back to previous posts in this thread and the two other threads which are linked in one of my earlier posts.

 

Excellent. I accept that you believe this.

 

And I disagree thoroughly with you, and think that not only did I make good, factual points, but that your points have been completely debunked by myself and others as well. Not only that, but I maintained my integrity by not misstating facts, changing parameters, misrepresenting what others said, and generally getting many details wrong, whether through negligence or outright falsehood (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), as you did not.

 

All done now?

[tth2]

For a few posts, it`s fine. But when it takes over this thread and just becomes this endless circular argument, then it just becomes boring and annoying.

 

You've just described 99% of all conversations on the internet. It's the nature of the beast.

Yeah, but when one of the participants is a friend, I feel compelled to remind him that he/it is getting silly.